Checksum Arcanius

Dan just updated the look of this site, The Deliverator-Wannabee. And it looks really nice, especially compared (cough) to the previous theme. Go take a look.

While you’re there, enjoy the copious amounts of useful technical information, reviews, and more.

Here is my projected schedule, so far. Still to be determined is the CSE 490 I lab time, since the current options both conflict with the Bioen 303 lecture. However, there appears to be a good chance that this conflict will be resolved.

My Birthday Weekend was quite fun and packed. As is often the case, there was no shcool on my birthday due to the Veteran’s Day holiday. So, I woke up late, did lunch and real-estate with my mom, then went to a DotA LAN party. I had never played DotA before, but with some guidance I found it to be quite a lot of fun. Next, I went to dinner with Courtney, roommate Dan, and Natalie, then it was off to bowling with the regular crew of Jon, Shai, and Theo. that made for quite a full day, but the weekend was just beginning. Saturday, I reviewed some more real estate, then went to the Huskies game (an ugly, terrible 20-3 loss to Stanford) before buying a mask and ending up at former roommate Kunlun’s housewarming party. I attended with Maria; the conversation was excellent and a good time was had despite having to rescue our masks from a couple of drunk girls. That concluded Saturday.

Sunday, it was back to work — consisting primarily of many more hours on the current Bioengineering Physiology lab. I then watched the end of the Seahawks game, played some pool with Maura at her place, then headed to my parent’s for a wonderful Sunday dinner and signing of a contract on some real estate (which seemed to be a common weekend theme). After dinner, I think I’ve conclusively verified a sneaking suspicion of mine: I am indeed allergic to chicken. I love the stuff, but my throat constricts and I feel generally crappy after eating it, a state which did not help when I got back to working on the BioE lab at 9:00. We ended — lab still not quite complete — at about 1:00am.

Today, I woke up late and missed my Bioengineering classes. I blame lack of sleep and chicken. Hopefully I’ll get back on track for the rest of the week — I don’t want to suffer too much from post-midterm slacking off. Later today there is a co-rec football game that coincides directly with the middle of a BioEngineering lab. If I can swing it, I will be missing the middle hour of lab to play in the game. I really want one of those t-shirts!

When Republicans worry more about staying in government than about limiting government, they get thrown out of government.

When I bike to campus and back, I don’t wear a helmet. This is a conscious choice — I’m aware of the risks and I own a helmet. But I like the freedom of riding without a helmet. Helmets feel stifling, and I probably wouldn’t bike much if I actually had to wear one. This was the one thing I thought I liked about Seattle — my understanding until recently was that although King County had an ordinance requiring helmets, Seattle had an exemption. I thought that was just grand, and often wished that my hometown, Bellevue, would have also exempted the city limits. However, I just learned that in 2003, Seattle made bicycle helmets mandatory. So, officially, there is no longer anything for me to like about Seattle. That is unfortunate.

More unfortunate is the UW’s new campus safety campaign, “Look Up!” I ride a bike for convenience — so when the UW implements new rules that make biking to class less convenient, that makes me unhappy, and, honestly, less liekly to bike at all. They claim it is for safety — but I have never hit or endangered anyone on campus, and I only rarely endanger my own life while biking around campus. Let me state for the record that I would not be opposed to a fine or some other punishment for running into somebody. What I am opposed to is being punished for what someone else may (or may not) have done at some point in the past. When I bike I am conscious of others, and I avoid hitting them — I think that is all I should be required to do.

Instead, I am now told I will have to frequently dismount at certain places on campus (“whenever pedestrians are present,” which means always), I am supposed to yield to all pedestrians and motor vehicles (except when a signal gives me a right-of-way [ie, the driver waving me by isn’t good enough]), and am given the clear message that there is no speed limit, but that “any speed deemed unreasonable is a violation.” Who decides what is unreasonable? It’s all a bunch of crap that makes riding less enjoyable. Basically, it is going to suck to ride bikes around campus for a while, until they forget about this or I find out if its easy to ride away from cops — or if its not easy, until I end up in University Jail, or wherever they put violators.

Now get this. On the next page of the pamphlet where I read the announcement of screwing-over-all-bicyclists, I read about a program designed to get more people to ride to campus, called “Ride in the Rain.” They have a competition about who rides to campus more (I ride every day), with prizes and a party at the end of the rainy season to encourage riding. Well I have some advice for these people-in-charge: maybe if you didn’t make it so inconvenient to ride, more people would ride to campus of their own accord, and you wouldn’t need a whole office full of people consuming my money to encourage me. And people wonder why education costs keep going up.

Update #2: If I switch 451 and 461 around, I can register for next quarter, and play wait & see for Spring quarter on 461. Of course, I have no current guarantee that 451 would be available Spring quarter at a workable time, so I pretty much just have to go with what I know will work for this quarter. Then, I can take 490i if they allow me, or take 233 otherwise. Taking 233 would lock me in to one schedule, while 490i would allow me to pick between 3, one of which I like better than the 1 option I would otherwise be left with. So if I end up sticking with BioE, it looks like my best choice is going to be 303, 305, 451, 490i and my backup is 303, 305, 451, 233. If I decide to go the CSE only route, I would face two pretty intense quarters (see below), but I’m pretty sure its possible. I will meet with CSE advisors soon to confirm this, so I can make a fully informed decision.

UPDATE: Hm, this may have just been decided for me — next quarter’s schedule doesn’t work out under the two-year plan…

I have been thinking a lot about my academic future once again. Frustrations with Bioengineering, and the realization that graduation this school year in just CSE is very possible, have made me consider the possibility of dropping Bioengineering and graduating in just CSE.

This is a tough choice. I worked hard to get in to Bioengineering, and I don’t want to quit just because things aren’t falling into place right now. But I also am itching for closure on this undergraduate chapter of my life. So, as my registration date of November 6th approaches, I decided to plan out both options, just to make sure that everything is lined up when I do make a choice.

The Two-Year Option (graduating in Bioengineering & Computer Engineering)

Autumn 2006 (15) (Current)
BioE 302 (4) — Introduction to Instrumentation (BioE core)
BioE 304 (4) — Analysis of Physiological Systems (BioE core)
CSE 378 (4) — Machine Organization & Design (CSE Core)
CSE 322 (3) — Introduction to Formal Models (CSE Core)

Winter 2007 (16-17)
BioE 303 (4) — Signal Processing (BioE core)
BioE 305 (4) — Analysis of Physiological Systems & Transport (BioE core)
CSE 451 (4) — Operating Systems (CSE Core)
CSE 461 (4) — Introduction to Networks (CSE Core)
CSE 490i (4) — Neurobotics (CSE Senior Elective, BioE Senior Elective by Petition)
-or- EE 233 (5) — Circuit Theory (CE Hardware Requirement)

Spring 2007 (16)
BioE 357 (4) — Molecular & Cellular Bioengineering I (BioE Core)
BioE 481 (4) — Research & Design Fundamentals (CSE Core)
CSE 451 (4) — Operating Systems (CSE Core)
CSE 461 (4) — Introduction to Networks (CSE Core)
CSE 466 (4) — Software for Embedded Systems (CE Hardware Requirement)

Summer 2007
Quit Job, Find Bioengineering Research Labratory

Autumn 2007 (16)
BioE 482 (4) — Senior Capstone Research/Design (BioE Core)
BioC 405 (3) — Introduction to Biochemistry (BioE Requirement)
CSE 467 (4) — Advanced Digital Design (CE Hardware Requirement)
EE 233 (5) — Circuit Theory (CE Hardware Requirement)

Winter 2008 (15)
BioE 482 (4) — Senior Capstone Research/Design (BioE Core)
BioE 470 (4) — Systems Engineering & E-Medicine (BioE Senior Elective)
BioE 490 (3) — Biomaterials (BioE Senior Elective)
CSE 403 (4) — Software Engineering (CE Senior Elective)

Spring 2008 (16)
BioE 455 (4) — BioMEMS (BioE Senior Elective)
BioE 457 (4) — Molecular & Cellular Bioengineering II (BioE Senior Elective)
CSE 444 (3) — Introduction to Database Systems (CE Senior Elective)
CSE 477 (5) — Hardware Design Capstone (CE Hardware Requirement)

Graduation ver 1.0!

One-year option (Graduating in CSe only)

Winter 2007 (17)
CSE 461 (4) — Introduction to Networks (CSE Core)
CSE 466 (4) — Software for Embedded Systems (CE Hardware Requirement)
CSE 490i (4) — Neurobotics (CE Senior Elective)
EE 233 (5) — Circuit Theory (CE Hardware Requirement)

Spring 2007 (17)
CSE 403 (4) — Software Engineering (CE Senior Elective)
CSE 451 (4) — Operating Systems (CSE Core)
CSE 467 (4) — Advanced Digital Design (CE Hardware Requirement)
CSE 477 (5) — Hardware Design Capstone (CE Hardware Requirement)

Graduation ver 2.0!

Bernie referenced it as he beat me to the punch, and now it has been formally requested (yes, I consider comments “formal”). Presenting, Ryan’s Reccomendations for the 2006 election:

Initiative 920 — Repeal Washington’s Estate Tax — I am voting Yes

I am generally against taxes, and this here is a tax. However, the issue is a lot more subtle than that. The estate tax (called the “death tax” by its oppoenents) is one of the more sound taxes theoretically. After all, few things make lives worthless as qucikly or as thoroughly as inheritting a large sum of money. Furthermore, the children of the rich are generally the very best prepared to contribute to society and thus produce wealth for themselves — they do not need the help of inheritted money. So, why do I oppose this tax? The problem isn’t theory — its application.

There are more than enough loopholes for anyone with enough money and a tax advisor to pass their money on anyway. So, in the end, its not the super-rich that really get laid out with this tax — its the hard working small business owner who dies in an untimely manner and didn’t have all the tax shelters set up. Then its the family that has to try to take over and while grieving find a large chunk of cash to pay the tax, or as usually happens, sell the business to pay the tax. The rub is, of course, that all the money they use to pay this tax has already been taxed when it was earned.

Bear in mind that the current system — even without the help of estate taxes — is not somehow terribly broken. The large majority of the rich in this nation got there without major help from inheritance, and most family wealth is lost within several generations.

Initiative 933 — Require Compensation When Government (Partially) Takes Land — I am voting Yes
This initiative is far from perfect — in fact, I’m pretty sure it will lead to some future headaches. Fortunately, the law is a malleable thing, and these headaches can be dealt with as they are recognized. But I’m still very much in favor of this initiative because it is a neccesary reaction to the insane land-use restrictions that have been put into place in several parts of Western Washington — including right here in King County.

Although I am generally in favor of some local land use regulation, I think it should be apllied fairly to everyone. Unfortunately, here in King County, a Seattle-controlled majority is telling rural land owners to the east what they can and cannot do with their personal property. For example, a rural land owner who owns land on a slope cannot develop two thirds of the property. I’d be unhappy, but morally ok with this law if it also applied to Seattle as well as rural King County. In other words, if Seattle had to restore two thirds of its sloped property to its natural state then this would be a fair law. Of course, Seattlelites would think that this is as ridiculous as rural owners currently think it is. How the current system is actually working is that Seattle gets to stay the way it is and just tell other people what they can’t do to thier property. Yet among the guarantees of Washington’s Constitution are that “No private property shall be taken or damaged for public or private use without just compensation having been first made” (Section 16). With today’s land-use laws, the result is often the same as if the government had taken two thirds of an owners property, but no compensation is currently being made. I-933 corrects this problem.

Initiative 937 — Require Energy Companies Meeting Arbitratry Number to Pay Arbitrary Fines — I’m voting No
Today’s alternative energy will become readily available — and therefore no longer “alternative” — as soon as it makes economic sense. I have no doubt that this will happen in my lifetime. And I’m not entirely opposed to governments pushing in that direction. However, I think government should approach the issue intelligently — not as this initiative does with arbitraty numbers or fines. I’d be more in favor, for example, of a consistent flat tax on all carbon dioxide release. That way, there is always an incentive for all power production to produce less carbon dioxide. This initiative, on the other hand, creates no incentives to small eletric utility companies to do anything, and raises electricity costs to most people with no social benefit (most likely, all the “non-alternative” power, including hydroelectric, would still be produced the same old way, but shipped to California).

House Joint Resolution 4223 — Ammend Constitution to Raise Exemption Limit — I’m Voting No
Constitutions, in my opinion, should be changed little. This seems far too minor an annoyance to warrant the change, especially when the correct thing to do is eliminate the tax that this would raise the exemption for.

King County Proposition No. 1 — Authorization to Sell Certain Real Property — I’m Voting No
But there is no real good reason for that, except that I refuse to rubberstamp county will. Also, the percentage voting yes on this one (as well at HJR 4233) helps me gauge the number of sheep in the county/state.

King County Proposition No. 2 — Public Transporation Sales Tax — I’m Voting No
I believe that Public Transportation, as present constituted, is not the answer to traffic woes. It is especially unfair to force rural king couty voters, who get no bus service, to pay for this. Do we really need more empty busses?

United States Senator — I will follow the lead of a friend and rank them in preference:

1. Bruce Guthrie (L) — Guthrie has tacked ar left to influence the election, but he is a true libertarian at heart. That means less federal government, which will make people on the right and the left happy. Libertarians are the real center.
2. Mike McGavick (R) — The moderate right-leaning candidate, talks tough on spending and goes light on the social issues. Also knows how to make hard decisions — like firing people — for the greater good — like saving an entire company.
3. Maria Cantwell (D) — The competent left-leaning incumbant who narrowly defeated Slade Gorton 6 years ago and looks poised for another victory.
4. Robin Adair (I) — Weird, but does not embrace bad ideas wholeheartedly, like…
5. Aaron Dixon (G) — As John Evans said, “Is proud of some bad ideas.” Also, like a watermellon: Green on the outside, Red on the inside. Sure, its a joke, but its far too true.

Congressional District No. 8 — Dave Reichart
Dave Reichart has carried on the moderate-right legacy of the very popular Jennifer Dunn that represents his district well. As the Seattle Times puts it, though, “it is hard to discern where Burner differs from the Democratic Party line.” East King county, a moderate district, would not be well represented by Darcy Burner.

Legislative District No. 41
Position 1 — The incumbant Fred Jarret (R) is the better of two bad choices.
Position 2 — Erik Fretheim (R) provides a more fiscally responsible choice than incumbant Judy Clibborn.

State Supreme Court
Position 2 — Challenger Stephen Johnson is a better choice for judging based on laws as they are written as opposed to how they “should have been written,” as Susan Owens seems to do all-too-often. Owens also fails to show at scheduled debates.

District Court Northeast Position 2
Everyone running for this position is bad. I haven’t figured out who I am voting for yet.